click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 4
CSPAN2 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
MSNBC 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 14
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
out to the pentagon for comment but have not heard back yet. nick robertson is following developments in london. is this the same drone that the united states said was returned to the united states? >> it looks like the same one. the iranians say it was flying 140 miles into their airspace off their northeastern corner, close to the border with afghanistan. the iranians are saying this aircraft was flying from the kandahar airfield base inside afghanistan, and some of the footage, and i looked at it, some of it could be kandahar air base but there's no guarantee this video came from the aircraft in question here. did they get this video from somewhere els? it's not clear. there's no way to verify at the moment what the iranians are saying. the spokesman that the iranians are putting forward says that the aircraft was sent to california several times in 2010 for repair and used for operations inside pakistan. >> translator: this aircraft has had many flights in countries around iran, operations that have taken place in pakistan. this aircraft provided guidance. >> again, no indications
that came out recently. it did suggest the pentagon is pushing the pentagon that would only keep 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the process so far, but can you support a plan that was scheduled withdraws troops in advance? you know, we're looking at withdraws troops in afghanistan and according to this article from a passing down to 1000 within a short period of time, i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdraw when sec previously, so much depends on the ground, what the government is doing, what variability eyes up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood with the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. certainly my advice is the commander on the ground or commander central command would provide my advice based upon breaking the security forces are and the conditions in theater and what i think we need to do to move forward to make sure we maintain the
lawmakers talking about passing what's called transfer authority enabling these agencies, the pentagon and others, to set priorities and not this draconian sequester setup. the white house is saying that they may not be in favor of that. so you have this standoff that it appears the sequester's going to move forward just as it is. jon: we'll just see how bad it is. a lot of people say the politicians are sort of hyping the damage that we can expect starting friday. we'll see. bret baier from "special report." thank you. you can watch bret on "special report," all of the latest political developments, and this is going to be a big week, 6 p.m. eastern right here on fox news channel. jenna: well, u.s. special forces who risk their lives to defend the people of afghanistan, the innocent people of afghanistan, are under fire by the afghan president now. we're going to tell you what's behind hamid karzai's surprising accusations and what it means for our troops in the fight against the taliban. >>> plus, some breaking news from sin city. police naming a prime suspect in a wild shootout that
. as is widely recognized, sequestration over the next 10 years apply to the pentagon budget would only reduce it in inflation adjusted terms to what it was in 2007 a. the most powerful military in the world -- 2007, as the most powerful military in the world engaged in a war in iraq and the challenge in afghanistan. if members of congress pay attention to the facts, they will see a clear path to dramatically reduce pentagon spending without undermining america's position as being the most powerful nation on the planet. and nobody has done a better job of highlighting a path forward, an area of opportunity, than walter pinkus writhing on the pages of the "washington post" over the last couple years as he details the sweep of our nuclear weapons program and the spending trajectory. this morning's latest offering should be required reading for every member of congress and the ones who whine the loutest should be forced to read it -- loudest should be forced to read it twice. he details a vast array of nuclear weapons already deployed, ready to be deployed within 30 minutes, a relic of our conten
the pentagon thinks they do not want or need, whether it they happen to be built in their districts. there is always plenty of room. as i understand it, the idea of the sequestration and originated with the president and his budget director, mr. lew. that is how they came up with this concept. republicans should simply let the thing become a fact. it is the only opportunity we have to make the present make any cuts at all. he seems to be so opposed to spending cuts and is only interested in finding tax and revenue. in my personal opinion, what we need to do is step back and take a look at our military and our commitments. we have bases in europe that have no reason to be there, certainly not in the numbers we are. host: we will leave it there. thanks for your call. ray locker? guest: we have a lot of military commitments all over the world. do we need to maintain a base in germany, for example? we could lessen our footprint there. there is a base on the islands in the atlantic that are controlled by portugal. we could dial that all presence there. if things get bad enough and there
the sequester in a hurry, then yes, it's a real problem because it doesn't let the pentagon begin to plan and distribute, if you will, the cuts. but at the end of the day, whether it's defense spending, education spending, health spending, what always matters more than how much you spend is how you spend it. and so i'm not, at the end of the day, all that worried about how much we spend, whether it's on defense or anything else. you just want to have the time to make some intelligent cuts rather than have to make them literally in a matter of days which would probably mean that readiness more than anything else would be cut out of the defense department account. and that's probably the one thing you don't want cut out of it. >> sam stein, you're close and yet so far away over there at the jump seat. what are the odds that the sequester actually takes place? we know the president's proposed something to push them back a while. are we going to see these kind of cuts, the ones that were outlined in the sequester proposal? >> i think the odds are pretty high, to be honest. i don't think there
hacked e hack in the pentagon a couple years. >> you have to figure the united states is doing that, as well. if you remember back in the last year, a book was revealing the that a virus that we developed that was responsible for essentially screwing up iran's nuclear program but they are after us. >> gretchen: brand-new video, 26-year-old cried and judge charged him with a premeditated murder of his model girlfriend. hundreds of miles away reeva steenkamp was laid to rest in an emotional ceremony. >> we're going to keep things close we remember about my sister and try to continue with the things that she tried to make a success. we'll misser. >> gretchen: meantime, oakley has suspended a contract with pistorius and nike says he has no plans of using him in future ad campaigns. >> drew peter so often will fight for a new trial. they already going to argue that the former lawyer did such a terrible job during thinks trial last year it led to a conviction. stenk will be next. he faces up to 60 years behind bars. >> engine room that crippled the carnival ship triumph and reveals that i
-- pentagon spending cuts set for march 1. later in the day, republican governor gary herbert will talk about his efforts to reform health care in his date and discuss utah's use of health insurance exchanges. he recently met with health secretary sibelius. live coverage at 12:30 p.m. eastern. >> according to pakistan's ambassador, drone strikes in pakistan are illegal and counterproductive. sherry rahman spoke to the christian science monitor on tuesday. here are part of her remarks. you can see the entire event on c-span.org. >> ambassador, i want to ask about drones. position is that they are a violation of your sovereignty and international law. under both of those categories, you have a right -- why don't you shoot down the drones? further, has pakistan threatens to shoot down drones. if not, why not? i ask this because there is an understanding that well pakistan publicly opposes strikes -- why don't you shoot down the drones? >> let me address this as most spokespeople to -- they speak to what they can. it is an important question. you asked a question which many ask. is there quiet co
until today to make these announcements. do you accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been we listed every major item we are talking about. we said we had to do furloughs. we said there would be cutbacks in readiness. we said unit costs would go up. all the same things. what we didn't do with a detailed budget planning and i don't regret that. we wouldn't have known the effects of the continuing resolution. we wouldn't have known that congress is going to change the size and the. moreover, we would have incurred the productivity and we would v done it six months ago, so i don't regret not doing that. i think we did sound the alarm in every way we could. >> i am wondering what kind of contract you are having with the white house and with congress there is going to have to be some. so are you trying to offer any solutions? also, i am wondering, what other things would you be doing right now if you were not spending all your time on this sequester. >> spending time with my wife -- i think i am hot the right person to answer. we are responsible for providing the nation's securi
on that "washington post" article that came out recently. it did suggest that the pentagon is pushing a plan that we keep on about 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the planning process thus far, but can you supported plan that would scheduled withdrawal of troops in advance? you know, we are looking at withdrawal of troops in afghanistan, and according to this article from about 8000 down to 1000 within a very short period of time. i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdrawal when, as you stated previously, so much depends upon conditions on the ground, what the government is doing, what their abilities are up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood what the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. and i certainly, my advice as a commander on the ground or commander of central command, i would provide my advice based upon where i think the security forces are, a
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)